Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO:

21 December 2013

Version of attached �le:

Accepted Version

Peer-review status of attached �le:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Knoll, M. and Van Dick, R. (2013) 'Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderatinge�ect of organisational identi�cation.', Journal of positive psychology., 8 (4). pp. 346-360.

Further information on publisher's website:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.804113

Publisher's copyright statement:

This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Knoll, M. and Van Dick, R. (2013) 'Authenticity,employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating e�ect of organisational identi�cation.', Journal of positivepsychology., 8 (4). pp. 346-360, Journal of positive psychology, 2013, c© Taylor Francis available online at:http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17439760.2013.804113

Additional information:

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, forpersonal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro�t purposes provided that:

• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source

• a link is made to the metadata record in DRO

• the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United KingdomTel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971

http://dro.dur.ac.uk

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of

organizational identification

Michael Knolla b

& Rolf van Dickc

a Department of Psychology , Chemnitz University of Technology , Wilhelm-Raabe-

Str. 43, Chemnitz , D-09120 , Germany

b Durham University Business School, Ushaw College , Durham ,DH7 9RH , UK

c Department of Psychology and Sports Sciences and Center for Leadership and

Behavior in Organizations , Goethe University Frankfurt , Grueneburgplatz 1, Frankfurt am

Main , D-60323 , Germany

Published online: 12 Jun 2013.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 1

Abstract

Authenticity is an important concept in positive psychology and has been shown to be

related to well-being, health, and leadership effectiveness. The present paper introduces

employee authenticity as a predictor of relevant workplace behaviors, namely, employee

silence and prohibitive voice. Converging evidence across two studies using cross-sectional

and longitudinal designs demonstrates that when responding to hypothetical problematic

workplace events (Study 1) or actual workplace experiences (Study 2), individual differences

in employees’ authenticity predicted more self-reported voice behaviors and less silence that

emanated from various motivations. Furthermore, authenticity scores consistently yielded

predictive utility over and above the contribution of a broad set of individual and

organization-based characteristics. Finally, organizational identification moderated the

relation between authenticity and silence, such that for employees with high levels of

identification, the relation between authenticity and silence was stronger.

Keywords: authenticity, character strengths, employee silence, organizational

identification, positive organizational behavior, positive organizational scholarship, voice

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 2

Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of

organizational identification

Authenticity, one of the key concepts in positive psychology research (Seligman &

Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 12), “involves owning one’s personal experiences, be they

thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, preferences, or beliefs” and “expressing oneself in ways

that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings” (Harter, 2002, p.382). Although

practitioners and researchers agree that authenticity is important for psychological well-being

(e.g., Rogers, 1961; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011), they question the appropriateness of

authenticity at work. Studies have revealed that employees are often required to act in specific

ways (e.g., Grandey, 2003; Hewlin, 2009; Hochschild, 1983) and that adjusting to others’

expectations might be advantageous with regard to supervisor evaluations (Blickle et al.,

2011). Relatively few authors have discussed authenticity’s potential to have positive effects

at work. Until now, promising empirical evidence has been available only for the role of

authenticity in leadership. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008), for

instance, found positive relations between authentic leadership and the performance and

satisfaction of followers. Authenticity’s potential benefits at the employee level have been

suggested only in conceptual papers (e.g., Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, & Settles, 2009) but have

not been thoroughly empirically examined.

We think that the potential benefits of authenticity may lie dormant because in some

situations, employees who are true to themselves could be beneficial for organizations. One

such situation is when employees face problematic situations at work (e.g., transgressions,

ineffectiveness). If employees engage in prohibitive voice (i.e., expressing their concerns

about work practices, incidents, or employee behavior that may be harmful to their

organization or stakeholders), problems have to be dealt with and problematic initiatives can

be prevented from taking place (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean

Parks, 1995). If employees engage in employee silence (i.e., “the withholding of any form of

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 3

genuine expression about the individual’s behavioral, cognitive, and/or affective evaluations

of his or her organizational circumstances to persons who are perceived to be capable of

effecting change’’; Pinder & Harlos, 2001, p. 334), problematic situations or developments

may go unnoticed and may cause harm not only to the employees and/or their organization,

but also to people outside the organization (e.g., customers and clients; Gibson & Singh,

2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

In the present paper, we will examine whether employees with high levels of

authenticity will less likely remain silent and will more likely voice their concerns when

confronted with problems at work. After introducing authenticity as a personality

characteristic, we will explain why the specific combination of self-awareness and self-

expression that characterizes authenticity addresses the specific demands that are put on

employees when they make decisions about whether to speak up or to remain silent. In two

studies using cross-sectional and longitudinal data, we will test our hypotheses and examine

whether authenticity provides incremental validity over and above established variables that

represent employee characteristics and context conditions. Furthermore, we will develop and

test a hypothesis of organizational identification as a moderator of the authenticity–silence

relation.

Authenticity as a personality characteristic

Despite its long tradition in philosophy, authenticity has only recently been addressed

as a concept in empirical psychology (for reviews, see Harter, 2002; Sheldon, 2004).

Humanistic (e.g., Rogers, 1961; Winnicot, 1965) and existentialist approaches (e.g., May,

1981; Yalom, 1980) have dealt with the topic but have lacked sufficient empirical

foundations. The few empirical papers that have examined authenticity have used

unidimensional measures that have equated authenticity with the feeling of being close to

one’s true self or expressing this true self (e.g., Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1997; Sheldon,

Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997).

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 4

A new perspective on authenticity was presented by Kernis (2003), who linked

authenticity to optimal self-esteem (i.e., genuine, non-contingent, stable high self-esteem).

Drawing on Kernis’ suggestions, Kernis and Goldman (2006) developed a four-dimensional

concept of authenticity that emphasizes a striving for self-knowledge, an unbiased processing

of self-relevant information, the free and natural expression of one’s self, and a valuing and

striving for openness in relationships. Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and Joseph (2008)

developed an alternative approach that was grounded in humanistic and clinical psychology.

In their tripartite model, Wood et al. emphasized congruence between feeling, thinking, and

behavior and the rejection of external influence.

In a recent attempt to integrate the two approaches, Knoll, Meyer, Kroemer, and

Schröder-Abé (2013) derived a two-dimensional model comprising (1) a self-oriented

dimension, i.e. authentic self-awareness, and (2) an expression-oriented dimension, i.e.

authentic self-expression. People with high levels of authentic self-awareness understand

themselves well and/or they are motivated to increase their self-understanding. In order to

achieve such self-understanding, people high in authenticity explore why they think, feel, and

act in particular ways. In this ongoing process, they take heed of informational cues from

external (e.g., how other people respond to their behavior) and internal sources (e.g., what

they feel when achieving a goal). This exploration results in a temporary congruent identity to

which people with high values in authentic self-awareness commit themselves. Undertaking

such commitments anchors a person’s expression in self-acceptance and self-confidence

(Guignon, 2004; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). The degree to which those commitments

manifest themselves in people’s expressions (e.g., in their behavior, clothing, facial

expression) determines the degree of authentic self-expression. The configurations of the two

dimensions elucidate the idea that, although distinct, they are related to each other in a

dynamic interplay. In order to preserve the integrity of self-awareness and self-expression,

people with high values in authenticity are careful not to fall short of their self-determined

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 5

standards (e.g., they do not easily give in to temptation and social pressure) and show the

courage both to admit their failures and to stand up to external claims (Knoll et al., 2013).

Prohibitive voice and employee silence

Practitioners and researchers agree that it is important for employees to make

voluntary contributions that are aimed at improving current workplace practices (i.e.,

promotive voice; van Dyne et al., 1995). By contrast, when employees express concerns about

work practices, incidents, and employee behavior that might be harmful to their organization

or stakeholders (i.e., prohibitive voice; Liang et al., 2012), this sometimes evokes suspicion,

opposition, and even retaliation (Cortina & Magley 2003; Near & Miceli, 1996). Thus,

employees may remain silent because they are afraid of negative consequences (i.e., quiescent

silence; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Besides remaining silent due to fear (for a more

comprehensive review, see Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevino, & Edmondson, 2009), employees

may withhold their views because they experience their environment as indifferent to their

concerns. According to Pinder and Harlos (2001), consecutive experiences of distinterest and

rejection result in a state of acquiescent silence. Remaining silent due to external forces or

limitations has been mentioned by Morrison and Milliken (2000) and Harter et al. (1997) with

respect to different contexts. Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) complemented the spectrum

of potential causes of silence by suggesting forms of employee silence that are more strongly

rooted in the individual motive structure. For example, employees may remain silent because

they want to divert harm away from a colleague, a supervisor, or their organization (i.e.,

prosocial silence; van Dyne et al., 2003). Furthermore, employees may withhold their views

because they want to protect their knowledge advantage or to avoid incurring an increased

workload. Employee silence that is based on selfish motives is called opportunistic silence

(Knoll & van Dick, 2013).

Drawing on approaches to explain moral behavior (Hannah, Avolio, & May, 2011;

Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999), we assume that employees pass through two stages

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 6

when they decide either to voice their concerns or to remain silent. In the first stage, they need

to recognize that the status quo needs to be challenged, for example, when one deems that a

product may harm the customers. In this recognition stage, prohibitive voice might not occur

because employees refrain from reflecting on a problem, trivialize the problem, reject

responsibility, or feel uncertain regarding the accuracy of their judgments (Bandura, 1999;

Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker, & Mayer, 2012). In the second stage, employees need to

express their concerns to someone who is able to effect change, for example, addressing in a

meeting the idea that current processes lack effectiveness. In this action stage, prohibitive

voice might not occur because employees fear opposition or drawbacks (for themselves or

others) from speaking up, or they do not have the adequate self-regulatory capacity to

overcome the temptation to remain silent (Hannah et al., 2011; Mead, Baumeister, Gino,

Schweitzer, & Arieli, 2009).

The present research

We expect that, when confronted with problems at work, employees with high levels

of authenticity will be less likely to remain silent and will be more likely to engage in voice

behavior. The two intertwined dimensions of authenticity (i.e., authentic self-awareness and

authentic self-expression) should counteract barriers and temptations that inhibit employees

from speaking up in the two stages (i.e., the recognition and action stages) when making their

decision to choose between voice and silence. Overcoming the first stage requires awareness

and maturation; that is, an employee needs to develop personal standards of how work should

be done and needs to be motivated to acknowledge shortcomings when comparing what is

happening in the organization with this personal standard (Hannah et al., 2011). We argue that

employees with higher levels of authentic self-awareness are less likely to distort information

or to lie to themselves because their self-acceptance and open and trusting stance toward their

self-aspect goes hand-in-hand with tendencies to observe internal and external stimuli in

general. Overcoming the second stage requires the confidence and the courage not to go

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 7

astray even when following one’s standards seems futile or raises opposition. We argue that,

once they recognize an event or development as discordant to themselves, employees with

high levels of authentic self-expression will determine what actions will allow them to

preserve their self-integrity and will commit to the response type that they deem most

appropriate for addressing the problem.

In two studies, we will test our main hypothesis using different methods and

conceptualizations of employee voice and silence. In Study 1, we will use scenarios of

problematic situations. We expect that employees who score higher on a measure of

authenticity will prefer to voice their concerns over other response types that do not directly

address the problem and therefore represent employee silence. In addition, we will investigate

whether authenticity provides incremental validity over and above employee characteristics

and context conditions that are associated with voice. In Study 2, we will directly ask

employees whether they tend to remain silent at their actual workplace and will try to specify

whether authenticity is negatively related to the full range of established motives for

employee silence or whether there are differences. In order to address potential biases

concerning cross-sectional designs, we will use longitundinal data to examine whether

authenticity is related to employee silence over time. Study 2 will also significantly extend

Study 1 by including organizational identification as a moderator of the authenticity–silence

relation.

Study 1: Authenticity and responses to problematic events – The EVLN (exit, voice,

loyalty, neglect) model

When confronted with problems at work (e.g., bullying, discrimination, being urged to

do things in an inappropriate way), employees have options in addition to the options to

remain silent or to raise their voice. The EVLN (exit, voice, loyalty, neglect) model

(Hirschman, 1970; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988) emphasizes such different

options and differentiates between four ideal types of responses to problematic events: exit

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 8

(leaving the organization), voice (speaking up about concerns), loyalty (further contributing to

the organization while leaving the specific problem unaddressed), and neglect (withdrawing

one’s efforts at work and trying to get the best out of the situation for oneself). We argue that

their striving for congruence between awareness and expression will determine the likelihood

that employees with high levels of authenticity will choose each of the four response options.

Our assumption that authenticity is positively related to voice is supported by Kernis

and Goldman (2006). They reported that people who scored higher on a measure of

authenticity more often applied problem-oriented coping styles (i.e., taking active steps in

order to solve the problem or to modify the source of the threat; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980)

and less often applied maladaptive coping styles (e.g., mental or behavioral disengagement or

refusing to admit that a stressor occurred in the first place). With a specific focus on the

recognition phase, negative correlations have been found between non-contingent self-esteem,

which is a central characteristic of authenticity (Kernis, 2003), and defensive mechanisms

such as cognitive and emotional strategies to distance oneself from threatening events and to

avoid thoughts and feelings that threaten one’s self-image and self-feelings (Kernis, Lakey, &

Heppner, 2003). Our assumption regarding the action phase is supported by Kernis and

Goldman (2006), who reported that people with high scores on measures of authenticity

reported more role-voice, that is, higher expressiveness of their true beliefs and opinions in

five social roles (e.g., being a student, a romantic partner). Thus, we expect:

Hypothesis 1: Authenticity will be positively related to voice.

Not speaking up about one’s concerns, either with good intentions (as is the case for

loyalty) or for bad reasons (as is the case for neglect) results in incongruence between one’s

sense of self and self-expression, a state that people with high levels of authenticity tend to

shun. With regard to the exit option, a clear prediction seems more difficult. On the one hand,

leaving the organization means not contributing to its wrongdoing and might therefore be an

option for maintaining self-integrity in cases in which speaking up seems futile (Parker &

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 9

August, 1997). On the other hand, research on career planning has shown that people who

score high on a measure of authenticity choose their employment with care (White & Tracey,

2011). Employment that is carefully chosen should (at least to some extent) offer a good fit

for employees’ needs and thereby provide resources that employees may want to conserve

(Ng & Feldman, 2012). Drawing on this logic, we expect that the need to conserve these

resources will weaken the tendency to leave the organization (i.e., exit). This suggestion is

supported by Kernis and Goldman (2006), who reported significant associations between

authenticity and self-reported exit scores among dating couples. Thus, we argue that voice is

the only response type in the EVLN model that allows one to preserve both self-integrity and

the resources from one’s current employment. In sum, we expect:

Hypothesis 2: Authenticity will be negatively related to exit, loyalty, and neglect.

In order to make a stronger point for considering the concept of authenticity in

organization research, we will examine whether authenticity provides incremental validity

over and above established variables in predicting voice (for a recent review, see Klaas,

Olson-Buchanan, & Ward, 2012). One approach that can be used to explain voice behavior

focuses on employees’ attitudes toward their job and their individual job situation. In a meta-

analysis on the EVLN model, Farrell and Rusbult (1992) found that job satisfaction,

individual job alternatives, and investments in a person’s current employment were positively

related to voice. A second approach focuses on the degree to which organizational context

conditions encourage voice (e.g., Avery & Quiñones, 2002). Establishing the independent

contribution of authenticity is important in this case not only because such evidence supports

our argument that authenticity is useful in research on voice and silence, but also because

environmental conditions that facilitate voice are often missing (Barry, 2007). We will

include variables that represent both approaches in the current study and expect:

Hypothesis 3: Authenticity will yield incremental validity in predicting voice over

and above job satisfaction, individual job alternatives, investment size, and voice opportunity.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 10

Method

Participants and procedure

We conducted an online survey in which employees responded to two scenarios of

problematic events at work. The sample comprised 184 employees (75% female) with a mean

age of 35.7 years (SD = 10.0), ranging from 19 to 62 years. Participants were employees

enrolled in a distance education psychology program at a German university. Twenty-four

percent of the employees worked in small organizations (up to 20 employees), 41% worked in

middle-size organizations (21-500 employees), 22% worked in large organizations (501-

10,000 employees), and 13% worked in very large organizations (more than 10,000

employees). Sixty-six percent held entry-level positions, 21% were lower management, and

11% were middle management. Part-time employees comprised 27% of the sample.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, participants responded to all survey items on seven-point

scales ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 7 (applies to me entirely). Descriptive

statistics and alpha reliabilities for all study variables are presented in Table 1.

Authenticity. To measure authenticity, we used the Integrated Authenticity Scale (IAS)

that Knoll et al. (2013) developed by integrating more comprehensive approaches according

to their conceptual overlap. The IAS comprises two subscales to assess the two dimensions of

authenticity: authentic self-awareness (ASA) and authentic self-expression (ASE). The four

items for each subscale (sample item ASA: “For better or worse, I know who I really am”;

sample item ASE: “I always stand by what I believe in”) were adapted from the Authenticity

Inventory 3 (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and from the Authenticity Scale (Wood et al., 2008).

The rationale for developing the scale was to provide a parsimonious measure for assessing

authenticity’s essential characteristics in non-clinical settings. The studies reported by Knoll

et al. (2013) revealed good psychometric properties (factor structure, alpha reliabilities, and

stability) for the scale. Construct and criterion validity have been confirmed using self- and

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 11

peer-ratings.

Responses to problematic events. To assess employee voice and silence, we adopted

the scenario technique used in research on the EVLN model. We presented two scenarios that

differed in their intensity of the problem and in whom would be harmed. Scenario 1 focused

on the narrow work context and represented a rather common incident, whereas Scenario 2

focused on a more serious problem that had the potential to threaten the organization as a

whole, even including the stakeholders, for example, customers. The exact wording of the

scenarios was:

Scenario 1: Please imagine you are sitting in a meeting concerned with the

coordination of the future actions of your work group, for example, a task force, a

team meeting, a project meeting, or the like. Imagine that you realize that all of the

members, including your superior, favor a course of action that you believe is

inappropriate, wrong, or even questionable for the development of your work group.

Scenario 2: Please imagine you realize that a product or a service that your company

provides will only insufficiently meet the customers’ expectations and, in the long

run, will even harm customers or the reputation of your organization. Nobody but you

seems to be bothered by the delicate situation. Moreover, your superior and possibly

your colleagues as well hope that this product or service will result in a profit for the

organization over the following years.

Employees read each scenario and were asked to indicate how likely (from 1 = not

likely to 5 = very likely) they would be to show each of 12 response options provided when

imagining that this situation was taking place in their own organization. Each of the four

possible responses was represented by three items adapted from Hagedoorn, Van Yperen, Van

de Vliert, and Buunk (1999). Prohibitive voice was assessed with the following three items: “I

would address the problem even if speaking up entailed disadvantages,” “I would discuss the

problem with someone who is able to alter the situation,” and “I would work with the people

who are in charge of the problem to try to find a solution.” Sample items for the remaining

response types were “I would intend to quit” (exit), “I would trust the organization to solve

the problem without my help” (loyalty), and “I would put less effort into my work than is

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 12

expected of me” (neglect).

Variables to establish incremental validity. Because we used a time-consuming

scenario technique, we needed to pare further measures down to a minimum. Job satisfaction

was measured using a single item (“Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job”)

from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Investment size was measured

using two items (“I have invested a lot in this job” and “I would lose a lot if I left this job”)

that we adopted from Rusbult et al. (1988). Individual job alternatives were measured using a

single item (“If I quit this job, I would surely find one that is as good as my current job”) that

we applied from Rusbult et al. (1988). Voice opportunity was assessed with three items

emphasizing the extent to which the organizational context supports voice behavior. The

wording of the items was “In my organization, there are arrangements for voicing concerns,

ideas for improvements, and the like,” “In my department, one can easily address critical

issues,” and “If I made a proposal for change, it might result in negative consequences for

me” (reverse coded).

Results and discussion

As can be seen in Table 1, moderate correlations between authenticity and voice in

both scenarios (rs = .46 and .31, respectively) fully supported Hypothesis 1. In line with

Hypothesis 2, authenticity was negatively correlated with loyalty (rs = -.31 and -.28,

respectively) and neglect (rs = -.43 and -.30, respectively). However, because the negative

relation between authenticity and exit was rather weak and did not reach significance for

Scenario 2 (rs = -.18 and -.12, respectively), Hypothesis 2 was only partially confirmed.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

In order to test Hypothesis 3, we computed hierarchical regressions to examine

whether authenticity would provide incremental validity over and above employee

characteristics and voice-facilitating context conditions in accounting for variance in

employee voice. As can be seen in Table 2, gender and age were introduced in the first step

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 13

and accounted for only 4% of the variance of employee voice in Scenario 1 and 0% in

Scenario 2. The employee characteristics of job satisfaction, investment size, and job

alternatives were introduced in the second step and accounted for 18% and 10% of the

variation in Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. When voice opportunity was entered in the third

step, the amount of explained variance increased by 5% and 3%, respectively. In the fourth

step, we entered authenticity, and the amount of explained variance increased by 10% and

12%, respectively, fully supporting Hypothesis 3.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Moreover, whereas perceived voice opportunity exhibited incremental validity beyond

the full set of characteristics included in the prior steps of the hierarchical regression model,

the strength of voice opportunity as a predictor seemed to decline substantially in Scenario 1

and failed to emerge as a significant predictor when authenticity was included in the final step

in Scenario 2 – thus suggesting that authenticity may mediate the relation between voice

opportunity and voice. Thus, we tested for mediation using Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) four-

step procedure. Fulfilling the criterion for step 1, the predictor variable voice opportunity was

related to the outcome variable voice (β = .42 for Scenario 1 and β = .30 for Scenario 2).

Fulfilling the criterion for step 2, voice opportunity was related to the assumed mediator

authenticity (β = .31). Fulfilling the criterion for step 3, authenticity was related to voice (βs =

.46 and .41, respectively). Step 4 assessed whether the relation between the predictor (voice

opportunity) and the outcome (voice in Scenarios 1 and 2) would become statistically non-

significant (indicating full mediation) or would decrease significantly (indicating partial

mediation) when the mediator (authenticity) was added. The results from the hierarchical

regression analyses supported a partial mediation model as indicated by decreases in the β

values from .42 to .31 for Scenario 1 and from .29 to .18 for Scenario 2. Sobel (1982) tests

using Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) macro confirmed that the partial mediations were

significant (Z = 3.41, p < .01 and Z = 3.26, p < .01).

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 14

In sum, results revealed that when confronted with critical situations, employees with

high levels of authenticity will make an active attempt to proactively change the situation and

will less likely hold back their concerns (as indicated by authenticity’s negative relation to

exit, loyalty, and neglect). The regression analysis indicated that when controlling for the

influence of several employee and organizational characteristics, authenticity emerged as the

strongest predictor of prohibitive voice, whereas competing variables (e.g., voice opportunity,

job satisfaction) sometimes failed to emerge as significant predictors when authenticity was

included in the regression model. Notably, results from the mediation analyses suggested that

voice opportunity might facilitate authenticity, which, in the end, will facilitate voice. Despite

the large support for our hypotheses, Study 1 is not without its limitations. The fact that our

data were cross-sectional may raise concerns regarding common-method biases (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We will address at least some of these potential biases

(e.g., measurement context effects, transient mood state) in Study 2 by complementing cross-

sectional data with longitudinal data. In addition, our scenarios were hypothetical insofar as

employees were asked to imagine how they would respond if the situation occurred at their

workplace. We will address this issue by referring to actual workplace behavior in Study 2.

Finally, the weak correlation between authenticity and exit was not expected. In Study 2, we

will examine whether this pattern might be explained by taking the influence of a moderator

variable into consideration.

Study 2: Relations with employee silence and the moderating role of organizational

identification

Results from Study 1 revealed that authenticity was positively related to voice and

negatively related to the absence of voice (measured as response types exit, loyalty, and

neglect). Van Dyne et al. (2003) argued that employee silence is not merely the absence of

voice, but should be conceptualized as a separate multidimensional construct. In particular,

they suggested examining employees’ motives for remaining silent. We follow van Dyne et

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 15

al.’s advice and address four motives for employee silence that have been identified in recent

research (i.e., quiescent, prosocial, opportunistic, and acquiescent silence; Knoll & van Dick,

2013).

Employees who engage in quiescent silence notice a situation that needs to be

challenged but are afraid to speak up. Employees with high levels of authenticity should be

more likely to stand up for what they value despite the potential for negative consequences

because their self-understanding (and self-acceptance) will help overcome internal barriers

(e.g., self-doubts) and guide them toward what is worth doing. Because they do not wish to

fall short of the standards they have committed themselves to, they will press their point

despite potential opposition and will not depend too much on external evaluation. The

assumed negative relation between authenticity and quiescent silence has been supported by

several studies that have shown authenticity’s positive relation to sense of coherence, non-

contingent self-esteem, and resilience and authenticity’s negative relation to anxiety and

rumination (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Knoll et al., 2013; Ryan, LaGuardia, &

Rawsthorne, 2005; Toor & Ofori, 2009).

Any such prediction is less obvious with respect to the two forms of employee silence

that are more internally driven (i.e., prosocial and opportunistic silence). Authenticity is about

striving for congruence between the self and expression in the first place. Thus, people with a

prosocial attitude might not report a coworker’s mistake because protecting others from harm

expresses their self-conception. In a similar vein, authenticity is not necessarily related to

generosity or kindness. Thus, selfish people probably express their opportunism without

disguise. However, findings from research on authenticity in relationships cast doubts about

such a pattern: Neff and Harter (2002) found that self-focused autonomous individuals (i.e., a

greater focus on the self’s needs with a lack of attention to relationship concerns) and other-

focused connected individuals (i.e., a greater focus on one’s partner’s needs and subordinance

in decision-making) reported higher levels of “false-self” experiences and lower levels of

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 16

voice than individuals with a more balanced relationship style (i.e., a balancing of self-other

concerns). We expect that those preferences in relationships will manifest in the form of a

negative relation between authenticity and both opportunistic and prosocial silence at work.

Considering the association between authenticity and non-contingent self-esteem

(Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis, 2003), authenticity should also be negatively related to

acquiescent silence. People with non-contingent self-esteem act in a manner that is self-

determined and congruent with their inner core self; they choose their actions because these

actions are intrinsically important to them rather than because the actions reflect externally

imposed demands (Kernis, 2003). Thus, employees with high levels of authenticity should not

need an external impetus to advocate the things they consider right, nor should they be

discouraged by their managers’ disinterest. Furthermore, acquiescent silence is a form of

detachment (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008). Given that authenticity is associated with

various markers of positive organizational adjustment, such as job satisfaction, meaning of

work, and work engagement (Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, 2013; Menard & Brunet,

2011; see also Study 1), employees with high levels of authenticity should be less likely to

detach themselves from the organization, which in the end should result in less acquiescent

silence. In sum, we suggest:

Hypothesis 1: Authenticity will be negatively related to quiescent, prosocial,

opportunistic, and acquiescent silence.

The role of organizational identification

Organizational identification is defined as “the perception of oneness with or

belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the

organization(s) in which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). If

employees with high levels of authenticity experience their organization as successful at

representing them as a person, that is, when they identify strongly with their organization, this

may serve as a marker for enacting or actualizing their true self via personal engagement at

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 17

work (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kahn, 1992). For example, employees who identify strongly with

their organization should feel authentic when going the extra mile (e.g., teachers who comb

the school building for unnecessary lights after classes in order to save electricity), although

this means additional (and unnoticed) effort. We argue that the well-established link between

organizational identification and extra-effort (van Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006)

will manifest in such a way that the tendency to speak up about critical issues – a tendency

that is associated with authenticity – should be even stronger if employees identify with their

organization. Moreover, when employees identify with their organization they feel more

involved as a person and therefore more psychologically present at work (Edwards and

Peccei, 2007; Kahn, 1992). Involvement and psychological presence are associated with

psychological states that make voice more likely than silence. Examples are attentiveness to

one’s thoughts and feelings, connection to (rather than detachment from) other people,

integration (rather than splitting off aspects of the self), and focus (rather than distraction).

Organizational identification should strengthen the (negative) relationship between

authenticity and employee silence because higher attentiveness should help one recognize that

a situation is incongruent to one’s self-concept, higher connection to others should lower the

barrier to talk about critical issues, higher integration should lower the tendency to block out

aspects of the self (e.g., one’s moral identity; Aquino & Reed, 2002) from elaborating on a

critical situation, and greater focus should make employees follow up on critical issues rather

than being indifferent. Thus, we expect:

Hypothesis 2: The effect of authenticity on all four forms of employee silence will be

stronger for employees with high levels of organizational identification than for employees

with low levels of organizational identification.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were employees enrolled in a distance education psychology program at a

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 18

German university. To obtain some longitudinal evidence for our hypotheses, we included

authenticity in a survey employees had to take when beginning their studies in order to fulfill

course requirements; this survey comprised several workplace-related variables. Four weeks

later, we launched our survey, which included all study variables. Of the 662 employees who

took part in the second survey, 128 employees had also participated in the entry survey. We

used these 128 participants (82% female; Mage = 33.9 years; SD = 8.7) as Sample A to

examine longitudinal effects of authenticity on employee silence. The remaining 534

participants (74% female; Mage = 34.0 years; SD = 8.1), were used as Sample B for testing the

moderation effect. The two samples were comparable with respect to tenure and whether

employees held a managerial position. The descriptives for the larger Sample B were as

follows: 32% had tenure of less than two years, 27% two to five years, 24% five to ten years,

and 17% more than ten years. Seventy-two percent held entry-level positions, 17% were in

lower supervisory positions, and 10% held positions in middle management.

Measures

Participants responded to all survey items on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (does

not at all apply) to 7 (applies to me entirely). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics and alpha

reliabilities for all study variables.

Authenticity was assessed with items that were identical to those used in Study 1.

Employee silence. We used Knoll and van Dick's (2013) 12-item scale for assessing

four forms of employee silence. This measure was developed to assess previously proposed

theoretical motives for employee silence (e.g., van Dyne et al., 2003). In a brief introduction,

participants became acquainted with the background of the study. They read that employees

sometimes face problematic situations at work and that people deal differently with such

situations, that is, some voice their concerns and try to change the situation, whereas others

remain silent. They further read that we were interested in whether they tended to remain

silent at work and what motivated them to do so. Each form of employee silence was

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 19

represented by three statements to complete the following item root: “I remain silent at

work....” Sample items are “...because of a fear of negative consequences” (quiescent silence);

“...because I will not find a sympathetic ear anyway” (acquiescent silence); “...because I do

not want others to get into trouble” (prosocial silence); “...to avoid giving away my

knowledge advantage” (opportunistic silence).

Organizational identification was measured with Edwards and Peccei’s (2007) scale

because it considers three different but related dimensions of identification, which are self-

categorization as organizational member (e.g., “My company is an important part of who I

am”), emotional attachment to the organization (e.g., “My membership in the organization is

important to me”), and integration of the organization’s goals and values into one’s self-

concept (e.g., “I share the goals and values of the organization”).

Results and discussion

Results from the longitudinal and cross-sectional data provided very good support for

Hypothesis 1. As can be seen in Table 3, authenticity was negatively related to quiescent (r =

-.22), prosocial (r = -.23), and opportunistic silence (r = -.20) when measured with a delay of

four weeks. Correlations were slightly stronger (rs = -.34, -.24, and -.29) when measured at

the same time with a larger sample. Authenticity was negatively related to acquiescent silence

when measured at the same time, (r = -.14), however, this relationship was not significant

when measured with a delay of four weeks (r = -.08).

[Insert Table 3 about here]

To test whether organizational identification would moderate the relation between

authenticity and employee silence (Hypothesis 2), four hierarchical regression analyses were

performed using centered variables (Aiken & West, 1991). As can be seen in Table 4,

authenticity and organizational identification were entered in the first step. In the second step,

the interaction of authenticity and organizational identification was added. Before taking the

interactions into account, results showed a complementary pattern for authenticity and

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 20

organizational identification. Authenticity was negatively related to all four forms of

employee silence with a smaller β for acquiescent silence. Organizational identification was

moderately related to acquiescent silence, but only weakly related to quiescent and

opportunistic silence, and not related to prosocial silence at all.

[Insert Table 4 and Figure 1 about here]

As can be seen in Table 4 and Figure 1, we found an interaction between authenticity

and organizational identification for three forms of employee silence (i.e., quiescent,

acquiescent, and prosocial silence). The interaction between authenticity and organizational

identification was not significant for opportunistic silence. Most likely, the increased strength

from identification is redundant in the case of opportunistic silence because behaviors such as

withholding knowledge and tactical manoeuvering are not compatible with the free and

natural expression of motives and opinions that is characteristic of authenticity (Kernis &

Goldman, 2006). To determine the nature of the interaction, we performed a simple slopes

analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). For employees with high levels of organizational

identification (one standard deviation above the mean), a negative relation was found between

authenticity and quiescent (b = - .87, p < .01), acquiescent (b = - .56, p < .01), and prosocial

silence (b = - .63, p < .01). For employees with low levels of organizational identification

(one standard deviation below the mean), the relation with authenticity was weaker for

quiescent silence (b = - .32, p < .01) and not significant for acquiescent (b = .14, p = .14) and

prosocial silence (b = - .16, p = .09). Thus, in line with Hypothesis 3, organizational

identification moderated the relation between authenticity and employee silence.

In sum, the results from Study 2 showed that authenticity was negatively related to

employee silence that emanated from various motives, and organizational identification was

found to moderate the authenticity-silence relation. Findings indicate that the main effects of

authenticity occurred even when controlling for organizational identification and the

interaction between organizational identification and authenticity. In fact, aside from

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 21

acquiescent silence, the main effect of authenticity demonstrated the lion’s share of the

variance in predicting the other three motives for employee silence. The relationship between

authenticity and acquiescent silence was found to be less straightforward than predicted. Not

only was this relationship weaker than expected, but also adding the authenticity-

identification interaction revealed the strongest influence in predicting this particular motive

for remaining silent. Most remarkably, analyzing the simple slopes involving acquiescent

silence, notably when organizational identification is low, this is the only case in which a

positive association (although a non-significant one) emerges between authenticity and

silence (b = .14). Thus, while higher authenticity is generally predictive of less acquiescent

silence and this holds among those who are high in organizational identification, when low

organizational identification occurs (which may serve as a proxy or marker of low

psychological presence, disengagement, work distress, and/or a current state of incongruence

between one’s core self values, needs, preferences, and one’s work role) authenticity does not

serve as a buffer against acquiescent silence. In such circumstances perhaps highly authentic

persons disengage from work and allow their true selves to come out in their private lives.

Such reasoning, however, is preliminary and needs further research attention. However,

previous research using ethnographic methods (Fleming & Spicer, 2003) suggests that there is

logic to our reasoning and it merits further exploration.

General discussion

Results from two studies support previous research by highlighting the positive

contributions of authentic functioning within organizational contexts (e.g., Gardner, Cogliser,

Davis, & Dickens, 2011; Leroy et al., 2013; Toor & Ofori, 2009). Our findings extend

previous research by providing evidence that the construct of authenticity is important beyond

its current use in well-being, health, and leadership research. According to our findings,

employees with high levels of authenticity should prevent potential harm to the organization

and its stakeholders. Individual differences in employee’s authenticity robustly predicted

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 22

more self-reported voice behaviors in two scenarios (Study 1) and less employee silence that

emanated from various motivations (Study 2). Study 1’s findings highlight the idea that

dispositional authenticity consistently yields predictive utility over and above the contribution

of a fairly broad set of individual and organizational characteristics. Indeed, competing

variables (e.g., voice opportunity, job satisfaction) sometimes failed to emerge as significant

predictors when authenticity was included in the regression model. In addition, authenticity

emerged as a mediator between voice opportunity and voice behavior. Study 2 broadens the

theoretical framework by showing that organizational identification moderates the relation

between authenticity and employee silence. Authenticity was generally significantly and

negatively correlated with motives for silence scores among participants who had either

completed their authenticity measure prior to (longitudinal design) or concurrently with the

other study measures. The main effects of authenticity always emerged and several interaction

effects also occurred, thus showing that the link between authenticity and employee silence is

stronger for employees with high levels of organizational identification.

Theoretical and practical implications

Our findings enrich knowledge on authenticity in applied research and contribute to

the literature on voice and silence. The studies presented here are the first to test authenticity’s

potential to predict desirable workplace behaviors. Our findings are of particular relevance

when considering the rather weak exploratory power that other personality dispositions

possess in predicting employee silence and prohibitive voice such as whistleblowing (see

Bjørkelo, Einarsen, & Matthiesen, 2010; Near & Miceli, 1996). Authenticity also showed

incremental validity over and above employee characteristics and context conditions that are

associated with voice. Notably, authenticity was particularly influencial in predicting the

forms of employee silence for which management efforts are of minor relevance (i.e.,

prosocial and opportunistic silence). This indicates that promoting authenticity might

complement the spectrum of strategies aimed at overcoming employee silence for which

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 23

management efforts to facilitate voice (e.g., open-door policies) are subordinate to other

influences (e.g., informal peer pressure, individual motives).

Besides establishing authenticity as a predictor of voice and silence, our findings

complement other approaches in explaining voice and silence. The results from Study 1

suggest that authentic functioning might be one of the mechanisms that mediate the relation

between voice opportunity and voice behavior. If longitudinal studies support the idea that

voice opportunity facilitates authentic functioning, providing employees with opportunities to

address problems will facilitate not only voice but also the effects that are associated with

authenticity (e.g., employee well-being). The finding that authenticity interacts with

organizational identification in predicting employee silence (Study 2) offers food for thought

about the seemingly complex relation between identification and employee voice/silence that

is currently debated (e.g., Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). In particular, considering the

influence of authenticity might help to explain the conditions under which there is the

potential for a dark side of organizational identification to occur. According to Umphress and

Bingham (2011), higher levels of identification might be related to employee behaviors that

benefit the organization, but that at the same time violate core societal values, laws, or

organizational standards of proper conduct. Most likely, this assumed link between

identification and unethical pro-organizational behavior would be smaller for employees with

high levels of authenticity.

Finally, our findings provide the first evidence for how authenticity interacts with

other employee and organizational characteristics. The interaction between authenticity and

organizational identification suggests that higher levels of authenticity are not a matter of

recoiling from social influences and communities but might work in concert with

organizational aims and values. Authenticity’s emergence as a partial mediatior between

voice opportunity and voice indicates that context conditions might facilitate authenticity.

Consequently, promoting authentic functioning within the organization might be a task for all

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 24

parties involved in human resource management and not the responsibility of just those

charged with recruiting. However, how employees can be themselves and serve the

organization at the same time will remain a topic of concern for practitioners and researchers

as well.

Limitations and directions for future research

Our findings can provide an impetus for future research on the concept of authenticity

and its potential for understanding organizational phenomena. Any such attempts should

consider at least four issues that we believe should receive further attention.

First, in personality and leadership research, there is an ongoing debate regarding the

contents and boundaries of the authenticity construct (e.g., Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2011;

Gardner et al., 2011). We cannot resolve this dispute here, but we want to explain how the

concept we used fits into this broader debate and how future research could adapt the facets of

authenticity that we omitted. We employed Knoll et al.’s (2013) conceptualization, which

integrates the two most elaborated approaches for measuring dispositional authenticity into a

self-oriented dimension (i.e., authentic self-awareness) and an expression-oriented dimension

(i.e., authentic self-expression). We drew from this approach because it is (on a personality

level) close to the two meta-dimensions (self-awareness and self-regulation) that have been

suggested by Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, and Walumbwa’s (2005) theoretical framework

for authentic leadership and authentic followership. However, Gardner et al.’s second meta-

dimension “self-regulation” is broader in the sense that it comprises the subdimensions

internalized standards, balanced processing, relational transparency, and authentic behavior.

The conceptualization we drew from comes closest to the authentic behavior component and

gives less attention to the other three components. Knoll et al. (2013) justify their model by

arguing that the components of internalized standards and balanced processing fit the

awareness dimension better and that authentic behavior should manifest itself in how people

act in relationships too. Previous research showed some support for integrating the facets of

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 25

the more comprehensive scales established in personality and social psychology. For

example, Menard and Brunet (2011) used selected items from Kernis and Goldman’s (2006)

scale and found two emerging factors, unbiased awareness and authentic behaviors, being

positively related to employee well-being. However, other studies showed that integration

might come with the price of sacrificing specific contributions that can be expected when

including dimensions that have been omitted in the present research (e.g., relational

transparency). Ilies, Curseu, Dimotakis, and Spitzmuller (2013; see also Spitzmueller & Ilies,

2010) focused on the behavioral and relational components of leaders’ self-regulation (or

expression) and provided evidence for relational authenticity’s critical role in the process of

leadership influence. Indeed, it is possible that particular facets of the authenticity construct

are more important for examining some research questions than they are for others. For

example, because leadership is a relational construct by definition, giving particular attention

to relational transparency might be fruitful for explaining the processes by which leaders

influence followers (and vice versa).

Second, our reliance on self-reports might raise concerns regarding the validity of our

findings (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2003). We tried to reduce at least some potential self-report

biases (e.g., measurement context effects, transient mood states, common-method variance)

by using longitudinal designs, different methods (survey studies, scenario technique), and

different criterion measures (reports of actual workplace behavior, hypothetical behavior in

two scenarios). These analyses do not preclude the possibility of common-method variance;

however, they do suggest that common method variance is unlikely to confound

interpretations of the results. In addition, social and personality psychologists claim that

authenticity can be best assessed with self-reports (Sheldon, 2004), and prior studies have

revealed good overlap between self- and peer-reports for authentic self-expression (Knoll et

al., 2013), the dimension that emerged as most important for silence and voice. Our attempt to

assess employee voice achieved additional credibility as the scenario method we used in

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 26

Study 1 has been validated by actual behavior (Liljegren, Nordlund, & Ekberg, 2008).

Complementing self-report data with peer or supervisor ratings would in principle also be

desirable when measuring employee silence. However, because silence can hardly be assessed

in organizational contexts without self-reports (for a detailed discussion considering this

issue, see van Dyne et al., 2003), combined designs (e.g., complementing surveys and

experiments with interviews) are desirable to further substantiate our inferences.

Third, our study design helped to ensure participants’ anonymity and thus prevented

social desirability biases to some extent as participants did not have to fear that their survey

responses would be revealed to their employers. However, our sample was homogeneous in

so far as all participants were enrolled in courses at a distant university in addition to their

regular jobs. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that participants’ average levels in

some of the concepts are not representative of the general population due to their specific

interests or experiences. However, we traded homogeneity in one aspect (enrollment in the

distance learning courses) for heterogeneity in several other aspects (e.g., organization size

and branch, hierarchical position), thus giving us some confidence that our results will be

largely generalizable. Furthermore, our study did not aim to draw conclusions about the

distributions or averages of authenticity and voice but rather about their relations and the

factors that influence them, and we do not think that these relations should be affected by the

nature of our sample. Future research that focuses on specific contexts, however, would be

very interesting for determining whether there are contexts that can help to increase or reduce

authenticity at work and whether there are contexts in which the relationship between

authenticity and organizational identification is higher than in others.

Finally, our findings and inferences should be substantiated through more

comprehensive longitudinal studies. More than two measurement points are needed to test our

suggestion regarding authenticity’s role as a partial mediator between voice opportunity and

voice. More comprehensive longitudinal studies will also help to clarify changes in

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 27

authenticity, voice/silence, their potential interplay, and the influence of employees’ attitudes

to their organization. For example, with the available data, we can only speculate about

whether authenticity requires different types of responses to problematic events from the same

individual over time. It is likely that when managers repeatedly ignore employees’ attempts to

address a problematic event and/or employees feel less committed to their organization,

employees high in authenticity will find other ways to preserve their self-integrity. It will be

interesting to identify potential individual or situational moderators that influence whether

authentic employees turn into “silent dissenters” (Parker & August, 1997), “whistleblowers”

(Near & Miceli, 1996), or “tempered radicals” (Meyerson, 2003). Our findings regarding the

moderating effect of organizational identification provided a first step in this endeavor. We

believe that such research would benefit from building on the research that has been

conducted in developmental psychology on the interplay between voice and authenticity over

time (e.g., Harter et al., 1997). The findings of Harter et al. (1997), for example, suggest that

sticking to the organization despite a perceived incongruence between the self and

organizational practices might, in turn, decrease employees’ sense of authenticity over time.

Conclusion

The pattern of results indicates that authenticity has value in organizations beyond

being an indicator of well-being and leadership effectiveness and that considering the concept

of authenticity can complement and extend current knowledge about the emergence of

employee silence and voice, organizational identification, and their interplay. In doing so, our

findings support positive psychology’s (e.g., Peterson & Park, 2006; Spreitzer & Sonenshein,

2004) claim that considering individuals’ strengths and virtues in organizational research will

offer new perspectives, particularly in the context of work performance in which classic

constructs of personality have not proven to be very predictive. Nonetheless, concerning the

strengths and virtues of this research, we recommend concentrating on concepts that appear to

have a direct connection to the research question. Authenticity seems to be suitable for the

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 28

prediction of voice/silence because its self- and expression-oriented dimensions address what

is needed in the two-stage process when critical issues need to be noticed and expressed.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 29

References

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Algera, P.M., & Lips-Wiersma, M.S. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-

creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The

Leadership Quarterly, 23, 118-131.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.

Avery, D.R., & Quiñones, M.A. (2002). Disentangling the effects of voice: The

incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural

fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 81-86.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.

Barry, B. (2007). The cringing and the craven: Freedom of expression in, around, and

beyond the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 263-296.

Bjørkelo, B., Matthiesen, S.B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Predicting proactive behaviour

at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing behaviour.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 371-394.

Blickle, G., Fröhlich, J.K., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes, T.J., & Ferris, G.R.

(2011). Socioanalytic theory and work behavior. Roles of work values and political skill in

job performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 136-148.

Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R., & Chiaburu, D.S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The

mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93, 912-922.

Cortina, L.M., & Magley, V.J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events

following mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247‐

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 30

265.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1995). Human agency: The basis for true self-esteem. In

M.H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–50). New York: Plenum.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human

needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Edwards, M.R., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identification: Development and

testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 16, 25-57.

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C.E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect

typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 201-218.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for the

power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157-179.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged

community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.

Gibson, R., & Singh, J. (2003). Wall of silence: The untold stories of the medical

mistakes that kill and injure millions of Americans. Washington: Lifeline Press.

Gardner W.L., Avolio B.J., Luthans F., May D.R., & Walumbwa F. (2005). “Can you

see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

Gardner, W.L., Cogliser, C.C., Davis, K.M., & Dickens, M.P. (2011). Authentic

leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,

1120–1145.

Grandey, A.A. (2003). When 'the show must go on': Surface acting and deep acting as

determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of

Management Journal, 46, 86-96.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 31

Guignon, C.B. (2004). On being authentic. London, New York: Routledge.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N., Van de Vliert, E., & Buunk, B.P. (1999). Employees'

reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and

the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 309-321.

Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., & May, D.R. (2011). Moral Maturation and moral

conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of

Management Review, 36, 663-685.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of

positive psychology (pp. 382-394). New York: Oxford University Press.

Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N.R. (1997). Lack of voice as a manifestation of

false self behavior: The school setting as a stage upon which the drama of authenticity is

enacted. Educational Psychologist, 32, 153-173.

Hewlin, P.F. (2009). Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating

facades of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 727-741.

Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,

organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of human feeling.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ilies, R., Curseu, P., Dimotakis, N., & Spitzmuller, M. (2013). Leaders' emotional

expressiveness and their behavioral and authenticity: Effects on followers. European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 4-14.

Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human

Relations, 45, 321-349.

Kernis, M.H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 32

Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26.

Kernis, M.H., & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of

authenticity: Research and theory. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 284-357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kernis, M.H., Lakey, C.E., & Heppner, W.L. (2003). Secure versus fragile high self-

esteem as a predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging findings across three different

markers. Journal of Personality, 76, 477-512.

Kish-Gephart, J.J., Detert, J.R., Treviño, L.K., & Edmondson, A.C. (2009). Silenced

by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 29, pp. 163-193). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Klaas, B.S., Olson-Buchanan, J.B., & Ward, A.-K. (2012). The determinants of

alternative forms of workplace voice: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management, 38,

314-345.

Knoll, M., Meyer, B., Kroemer, N.B., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2013). It takes two to be

yourself. An integrated model of authenticity, its measurement, and its relevance for active

followership and employee well-being and health. Manuscript under review.

Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle…? A first attempt to measure

four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349-362.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N.G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic

functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 82, 238-247.

Liljegren, M., Nordlund, A., & Ekberg, K. (2008). Psychometric evaluation and

further validation of the Hagedoorn et al. modified EVLN measure. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 49, 169-177.

Liang, J., Farh, C.I.C., & Farh, J.L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive

and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71-92.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 33

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,

103-123.

May, R. (1981). Freedom and destiny. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Mead, N.L., Baumeister, R.F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M.E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too

tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 45, 594–597.

Menard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A

mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331–346.

Meyerson, D. (2003). Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders inspire change at

work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Moore, C., Detert, J.R., Trevino, L., Baker, V., & Mayer, D. (2012). Why employees

do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel

Psychology, 65, 1–48.

Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F.J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change

and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725.

Near, J.P., & Miceli, M. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of

Management, 22, 507-–526.

Neff, K.D., & Harter, S. (2002). The role of power and authenticity in relationship

styles emphasizing autonomy, connectedness, or mutuality among adult couples. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 835–857.

Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test

of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216–

234.

Parker, L.E., & August, D. (1997). Silent Dissenters: A model for exploring the

sources and consequences of principled turnover. In L.N. Doser & J.B. Keys (Eds.), Academy

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 34

of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 57th Annual Meeting of the Academy of

Management (pp. 71-75). Statesboro, GA: Georgia Southern University.

Peterson C., & Park, N. (2006). Character strengths in organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 1-6.

Pinder, C.C., & Harlos, K.P. (2001). Employee silence: quiescence and acquiescence

as responses to perceived injustice. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds), Research in

personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 331-369). New York: JAI Press.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common

method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating

indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &

Computers, 36, 717–731.

Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M.J., & Thoma, S.J. (1999). Postconventional moral

thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, P.F., Cha, S.E., Hewlin, L.M., & Settles, I.H. (2009). Bringing the inside out:

Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In L.M. Roberts & J.E. Dutton

(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research

foundation (pp. 149-169). New York: Routledge.

Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G, & Mainous, A.G. (1988). Impact of exchange

variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining

job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599–627.

Ryan, R.M., LaGuardia, J.G., & Rawsthorne, L.J. (2005). Self-complexity and the

authenticity of self-aspects: Effects on well-being and resilience to stressful events. North

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 35

American Journal of Psychology, 7, 431-448.

Schlegel, R. J., & Hicks, J. A. (2011). The true self and psychological health:

Emerging evidence and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5,

989–1003.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An Introduction.

American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Sheldon, K.M. (2004). Integrity (honesty/authenticity). In C. Peterson & M.E.P.

Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues (pp. 249-272). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Rawsthorne, L.J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true

self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological

authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

1380-1393.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural

equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (Vol. 13, pp. 290-312).

Washington DC: American Sociological Association.

Spitzmueller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they [all] see my true self? Leader's relational

authenticity and followers' assessments of transformational leadership. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 304-332.

Spreitzer, G., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive

deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 77, 828-847.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. ( 2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice:

The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management

Journal, 51, 1189-1203.

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Authenticity and its influence on psychological well-

being and contingent self-esteem of leaders in Singapore construction sector. Construction

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 36

Management and Economics, 27, 299–313.

Umphress, E.E., & Bingham, J.B. (2011). When organizational citizens do bad things

for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science,

22, 621–640.

Van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O. & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra

mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship

behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283-301.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I.C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and

employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359-

1392.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In

pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L.L.

Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215-285).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., & Peterson, S.J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal

of Management, 34, 89-126.

White, N.J., & Tracey, T.J.G. (2011). An examination of career indecision and

application to dispositional authenticity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 219-224.

Winnicott, D.W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment.

New York: International Universities Press.

Wood, A.M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The

authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of

the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385-399.

Yalom, I.D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 0

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and zero-order correlations (Study 1)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 Authenticity 5.06 0.83 .82 .85** .85** .29** .07 .18* .31** -.18* .46** -.31** -.43** -.13 .41** -.28** -.30**

2 ASA 5.38 0.97 .83 .44** .26** .04 .21** .29** -.13 .30** -.18* -.29** -.17* .27** -.08 -.20**

3 ASE 4.74 0.99 .75 .24** .08 .10 .23** -.18* .48** -.34** -.43** -.06 .42** -.39** -.31**

4 Job

Satisfaction 4.64 1.77 - -.26** .57** .63** -.35** .39** -.10 -.35** -.27** .26** -.10 -.23**

5 Job

Alternatives 3.91 1.53 - -.24** -.12 .14 -.01 -.03 .04 .13 -.06 .03 -.05

6 Investment

Size 4.53 1.46 .71 .40** -.32** .37** -.12 -.28** -.31** .29** -.12 -.22**

7 Voice

Opportunity 4.60 1.35 .74 -.41** .42** -.19** -.39** -.30** .30** -.17* -.18*

8 Exit 1a 2.65 1.13 .92 -.20** .15* .34** .61** -.24** .20** .24**

9 Voice 1 3.91 0.71 .71 -.52** -.42** -.19** .64** -.39** -.19**

10 Loyalty 1 2.72 0.80 .65 .38** .14 -.38** .46** .23**

11 Neglect 1 2.30 0.83 .73 .24** -.44** .43** .59**

12 Exit 2 2.66 1.20 .95 -.14 .03 .43**

13 Voice 2 4.07 0.67 .80 -.64** -.42**

14 Loyalty 2 2.40 0.78 .72 .46**

15 Neglect 2 2.13 0.78 .76

Notes. N=184. aNumber indicates Scenario 1 or 2. ASA = Authentic Self-Awareness, ASE = Authentic Self-Expression. Coefficient alpha reliabilities for each multi-item scale

are presented in italics on the main diagonal.

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 1

Table 2. Multiple regression analyses examining effects of employee characteristics and voice opportunity on employee voice (Study 1)

Predictor and Step Employee Voice Scenario 1 Employee Voice Scenario 2

Step 1

Gendera -.15 -.09 -.10 -.06 -.06 -.02 -.02 .02

Age .17* .13 .13 .09 .02 -.03 -.03 -.07

Step 2

Investment Size .24** .22* .22** .25** .23* .24**

Job Alternatives .15* .12 .08 .04 .02 -.04

Job Satisfaction .26** .10 .04 .12 -.00 -.08

Step 3

Voice Opportunity .27** .20* .21* .13

Step 4

Authenticity .35** .38**

F 3.60* 9.19** 9.72** 13.46** 0.31 3.91** 4.15** 7.77**

R² .04 .22 .26 .37 .00 .11 .13 .25

∆R² .18** .05** .10** .10** .03* .12**

Notes. n = 171. Standardized regression coefficients reported. * = p <. 05, ** = p < .01. a1 = female, 2 = male.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 2

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and zero-order correlations (Study 2)

Sample A M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Authenticity t1 5.15 0.89 .85 .88** .82** .70** .64** .62** .20* -.22* -.08 -.23** -.20*

2 ASA t1 5.41 1.14 .84 .44** .48** .53** .32** .17 -.04 -.00 -.15 -.12

3 ASE t1 4.89 0.95 .72 .73** .55** .77** .18* -.36** -.14 -.26** -.24**

Sample B

4 Authenticity t2 5.14 0.81 .80 .86** .84** .07 -.34** -.14** -.24** -.29**

5 ASA t2 5.42 0.97 .81 .44** .08 -.15** -.08 -.12** -.23**

6 ASE t2 4.85 0.93 .68 .04 -.44** -.16** -.29** -.27**

7 Organizational Identification t2 3.88 1.63 .95 -.11* -.37** -.02 -.12**

8 Quiescent Silence t2 3.28 1.73 .90 .47** .41** .44**

9 Acquiescent Silence t2 3.54 1.79 .89 .23** .35**

10 Prosocial Silence t2 3.76 1.63 .89 .35**

11 Opportunistic Silence t2 2.16 1.17 .74

Notes. Sample A: N = 128; Sample B: N = 534. ASA = Authentic Self-Awareness, ASE = Authentic Self-Expression. Coefficient alpha reliabilities for each scale are presented in

italics on the main diagonal. Cross-sectional data from Sample B are shown below the bar.

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 3

Table 4. Regression analysis predicting four forms of employee silence with authenticity, organizational identification, and their interaction (Study

2)

Quiescent Silence Acquiescent Silence Prosocial Silence Opportunistic Silence

b SE b β ∆R² b SE b β ∆R² b SE b β ∆R² b SE b β ∆R²

Step 1 .13** .15** .06** .10**

Authenticity -.58 .07 -.34** -.20 .07 -.11* -.39 .07 -.24** -.33 .05 -.29**

Organizational

Identification

-.14 .07 -.08* -.66 .07 -.37** .00 .07 .00 -.11 .05 -.10*

Step 2 .03** .04** .02** .00

Authenticity -.59 .07 -.34** -.21 .07 -.12** -.39 .07 -.24** -.34 .05 -.29**

Organizational

Identification

-.11 .07 -.07 -.62 .07 -.34** .03 .07 .02 -.11 .05 -.10*

Authenticity x

Organizational

Identification

-.27 .07 -.16** -.35 .07 -.20** -.23 .07 -.15** -.05 .05 -.05

Notes. N = 534. * = p < .05, ** = p <.01.

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 4

Figure 1. The relationship between authenticity

(IAS) and three forms of employee silence as a

function of organizational identification (OI) (Study

2)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low IAS High IAS

Qu

iesc

ent

Sil

ence

Low OI

High OI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low IAS High IAS

Acq

uie

scen

t S

ilen

ce

Low OI

High OI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low IAS High IAS

Pro

soci

al

Sil

ence

Low OI

High OI

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 5

Authenticity, employee silence, and prohibitive voice 0